Wine vs. Grapejuice @ Communion

Wrong! Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging. Whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his color in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.

The warnings in these verses are against the wine, not against the abuse of it. If one partakes of alcoholic wine, they are disobeying the command to abstain... thereby abusing it with the first sip of it.

 

It is quite obvious I am not the one who is stumped. The verses in Proverbs are a clear warning against the use of and the properties of alcoholic wine.

When wine is spoken of as good in the Bible, it is non-alcoholic. When it is warned against, it is alcoholic.

 

Oh dear heavens....who started this thread???

You had to know it was opening up a can of worms.

 

Yep, that is one of the myths I was taught as a child. However I am no longer a child and I know this is a myth. By definition wine means a fermented grape juice.

For heavens sake, they had no other way to preserve any fruit juice back then. Relmember the Bible says, "All things in moderation." This included wine, food ... you name it and it means moderation.

When Paul told Timothy that a little wine was good for the stomach he did not mean grape juice, he meant wine.

Fortunately or unfortuantely I hate the taste of alcohol ... so I have to find someting else to "help my stomach."

 

The Word of God is no myth. Scripture demands abstinence.

Wine today by definition is alcoholic, but in the Bible times, it was both alcoholic and non-alcoholic.

Pliny the Elder, in his book "On Agriculture and Trees," penned down the methods of preserving wine in its non-fermented state. Aristotle, Varro, Cato, Columella and others also penned methods of preservation.

From Smith's Greek and Roman Antiquities:
The sweet, unfermented juice of the grape was termed gleukos by the Greeks and mustum by the Romans - the latter word being properly an adjective signifying new or fresh.

Littleton's Latin Dictionary of 1670:
Must, new wine, close shut up and not permitted to work.

Even in the 1600's the method of preserving the must in its unfermented state was known.

 

The word gleukos us found one place in the New Testament, Acts 2:13. According to Strong's this word means sweet wine. This is opposite of sour wine, oxos, and can mean any of the following: vinegar, sour wine; could be made from grape wine or other fermented beverages; when mixed with water, it was a common, cheap drink of the poor and of the Roman soldiers . Mt 27:48; Mk 15:36; Lk 23:36; Jn 19:29f.

The common term for wine, femented wine is oinos and is found in: Mt 9:17; Mk 2:22; Lk 1:15; Jn 2:3; Ro 14:21; Ep 5:18; 1Ti 3:8; Ti 2:3; Re 6:6; etc.

The word for strong wine, sikera is found once in Lk 1:15.

So it is an error to say that wine, as a fermented drink, is not found in the Bible or New Testament.

I believe this is rather like the "eating the meat offered before idols" in Paul's wirting. If you believe that drinking alcohol is a sin for you, then to do so is a sin. For those who do not believe it is a sin, then drinking in moderation is not a sin. Drinking to excess is always a sin, just as gluttony is a sin. As I do not like the taste of alcohol and thus do not drink ... well it is no star in my crown, no merit to me.

 

Also recorded by Pliny the Elder:

Between the sirops and real wine is the liquor that the Greeks call aigleukos - this is our "permanent must [semper mustum]." Care is needed for its production, as it must not be allowed to "boil [fevere]" - that is the word they use to denote the passage of must into wine. Consequently, as soon as the must is taken from the vat and put into casks, they plunge the casks in water till midwinter passes and regular weather sets in.

It is obvious from the writings of Pliny that the preservation of wine in its unfermented state was known and practiced.

Cato, on the preservation of unfermented wine wrote in "De Re Rustica":
If you wish to have must all the year, put the grape juice in a flask [amphora], seal over the cork with pitch, and lower it into the cistern [piscina]. After 30 days, take it out; it will be must all the year.

Aristotle speaks of an unintoxicating wine called oinos in the book "Metior".

Enough has been recorded by historians to substantiate the fact that non-alcoholic wines were produced and preferred during the time Christ and His Apostles walked the earth.

 

I am not arguing against your quote above, but it is obvious from the words used in the New Testament ... and the Old Testament, if you want them I can provide them, that fermented drink was consumed by people in both eras. And to attempt to argue against that is ......... hmmmmmmmm, not possible

In our day and age with all the drinks that are available to us I see no reason to ever drink any fermented drink ... but then as I said I do not like the taste of alcohol.

 

As I have stated previously, both fermented and non-fermented wines can be found in the Old and New Testaments. Context will tell the reader which was fermented and which was not.

I might add that according to historians of that era in which Christ and His Apostle's lived recorded that the non-fermented wines were preferred. The people of that time regarded those who drank fermented beverages as "barbarians".

 

Context will certainly tell! Like when it says not to be drunk with wine wherein is excess...obviously a reference to real wine.
Or how about when Proverbs says to give wine to those who are perishing? Obviously real wine.

Or should a bishop not be given to what kind of wine? And a deacon to what kind of wine?

I am with crabtownboy, I don't really care for the taste of alcohol (at least in most of the forms I have tried) but I do care about the mishandling and twisting of God's word.

In short, my position is taken directly from the text of scripture, yours requires external sources to redefine scripture.

 

or.....a bottle of vino or grape juice! (take your pick) (sorry - just being my usual cheeky self!)

 

This is one of the most difficult topics to discuss on the BB because it is the only one that you can't discuss over a pint

 

Wine was used in ancient times to purify water. It was diluted to the point that it would have been physically impossible to get drunk from it.

Wine was also used as an anitseptic. This is all that they had. It was truly a gift from God.

I personally think that the wine that is "red in the cup" is full strength, undiluted wine. It was not intended to be drank this way.

The wine at the wedding in Cana, I believe, did have alcohol in it, but was diluted for safe water consumption. Wine also made the water taste good. But to think that the wine Jesus made was undiluted, full alcohol content wine is wrong in my opinion.

Our pastor spoke of this just this past Sunday and said that the miracle was that the water was made purified by the wine immediately. He explained that this process actually took several months and was done by putting certain fruits into water and letting it ferment. This created a very diluted "wine" but had a good taste and purified the water.
Our paster is without a doubt against alcohol consumption, so his explanation was by no means used an excuse to drink.

There is no reason to drink full strength wine in our culture. If I ever go to a country that only has foul water to drink, yes, I will put wine in it before I drink it, because that is Biblical.

 

My church services are not in tabernacles...are yours? The Lord's Supper didn't take place in a tabernacle, btw.

 

By the way, a good book that has the brief history of alcoholic beverages is "A History of the World in Six Glasses".

It gives the six most influential drinks in history. Two of them are wine and beer. It is a fun, interesting book.

 

Apparently your pastor did not study the Word of God concerning the wedding feast, but some off the wall commentary. The pots of water were purification pots that people washed hands in. They were not for holding wine in at all.

The wine Christ made could not have been alcoholic in content, else He would have been putting something in front of others that could cause them to stumble.

How sad people have to accuse the Savior, the Spotless and Sinless Son of God, of putting that poison the Word of God condemns to another's lips.

 

..........going against SFICs preconceived opinion on the matter.

 

What is sad is that you must redefine passages of scripture to fit with your theology.

Again your method is: I know wine is wrong therefore Christ could not have served it.

I see: .Christ did it therefore it is not wrong.